Office of the President
Earlham Convocation — April 2, 2003
Perspectives on War and its Aftermath
Douglas C. Bennett, President
Opening Remarks
We’re here to talk seriously about matters of the gravest concern — about matters of war and peace.Our nation is again at war, and every citizen of this country bears an equal share of the responsibility for what is now happening in Iraq.
Citizens of other countries — and we have citizens of many other countries among us — have reason to understand what the most powerful country in the world is doing with its armed might in a country thousands of miles distant.
I want to urge each and every one of you to pay attention:
- To exercise your rights and responsibilities as citizens.
- To feel and to bear the gravity of this situation.
- To bring your best understandings to the situation.
- And to act thoughtfully and intentionally, as individuals and with others, in helping to steer this troubled and bleeding planet towards a better future.
In any time of war, I can imagine any Earlham President saying such a thing. But I believe there are three special reasons for urging your best attention here and now.
First, we are in a new situation in the world. We have emerged fully from the Cold War, from a contest between two superpowers, and now are facing a world with a single nation of pre-eminent military power. How should that power be used? What means are legitimate? In what settings? For what purposes? When is it appropriate for one nation to act alone? And when should nations only act in concert? These – and more — are all important questions for us to explore.
Second, I believe we have embarked on this war after only a very shallow public debate among our elected officials and in the media and other public forums. I have been disappointed by the performance of politicians and political parties, by the performance of journalists, and by the performance of intellectuals. We have had claims and counterclaims, slogans and counter slogans, marches and counter marches; but we have had very, very little searching, listening dialogue.
(It’s noteworthy and troubling, for example, that the debate has largely been silent on the relationship between this situation and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.)
Now is not too late to begin talking carefully, seriously and tenderly to one another.
And third, I believe that this war risks having profound, lasting and harmful consequences for civil and political rights in the United States, and for the vital fabric of democracy in this country. If we do not pursue or curtail this war via democratic means, we may have diminished possibilities for democratic processes in the future.
This is why we are having this forum today at Convocation.
Whatever your views, I urge you not to be dismissive of the views of those with whom you disagree, nor cynical about their motives. I believe that those who have planned and are pursuing this war have high-minded purposes. And I believe the same of those who oppose it. To believe that others are shallow-minded or morally-lacking in their positions will doom any effort at serious dialogue.
Because this is a matter that claims the attention of each and every one of us, I want to say a very few words about my own views on the war and also a very few words about Earlham’s position.Myself, I am of two minds about the war. I don’t mean that part of me is in favor of the war and part of me opposed. I think the war is a tragic mistake for all concerned. I mean rather than I am opposed to it in two different ways that are not easily reconciled.
On the one hand, I think — especially as a political scientist — about the likely consequences of the war. How many causalities will there be, at home and abroad? How much hatred will be sown? What will be the financial costs of the war — for the U.S., and for Iraq? What will be the consequences for our relations with other nations — with our European allies, for example? What will the consequences be for U.S.-Turkey relations? For internal politics in Pakistan or Iran?
In all these matters, I believe the negative consequences outweigh any potential positives. I think especially about the consequences just for Iraq and for U.S. Iraqi relations over the long term.
I was in Mexico as the war began. In Chapultepec Park in Mexico City, I saw again the monument to the Ninoes Heroes — the six “boy heroes” who fought and died against an unjustifiable invasion by the United States in the 1840s. One hundred and sixty years later, Mexico still remembers their deaths, still bears that grievance against the United States. How long will Iraq bear grievances against the United States for this war? How long will other Islamic countries?
On the other hand, I am a pacifist, and have been since I was 19. I am a pacifist not because I weigh the consequences of each and every potential war and believe the negative consequences to be weightier. Rather, I am a pacifist because I believe God calls me, calls you, calls each and every one of us to be a peacemaker. My pacificism does not arise from the same kind of thinking. It arises from something different and deeper. It is not a weighing of consequences; it is a demand of faithfulness.
So in these times, I find myself talking a great deal to myself, the two sides of my thinking in dialogue.
Now a word about Earlham.
Some of you may be thinking Earlham is Quaker, Quakers are pacifists. So shouldn’t Earlham take a stand against this war? Shouldn’t Earlham help lead the opposition to this war?
Our answer and Earlham’s answer in the past at similar moments is to say no to that.
We are ‘Quaker to the core,’ but we are a Quaker educational institution. Our deepest purpose is to draw young men and women into settings where you can learn and seek truth. We do not invite only Quakers here to learn. We do not invite only those who agree with me or with any doctrine or creed.
“Earlham welcomes all who come to seek for truth in a diverse community that accords respect to every individual. Each is asked to contribute to the understanding of all.” That’s on the wall outside.Earlham’s role in a time of war is not to take positions. Earlham’s role is to create an environment where we can have serious talk about the most serious matters of war and peace, life and death.
In a time of war, it is very difficult to find settings and occasions for civil, searching, respectful dialogue in which all may participate and all may learn. I believe Earlham must provide such settings and occasions. For Earlham as a whole to take a position, could and would lead some to believe that their opinions were not welcome here. This is a message we must not convey.
Again, I want to urge each and every one of you to exercise your rights and responsibilities as citizens. It is as individuals you are citizens. And I invite each of you to enter into dialogue with others….
Earlham
School of Religion
Richmond, Indiana
esr.earlham.edu